Explaining "If a=1 and b=1: then a squared - 1...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Byrgg
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a mathematical error involving the manipulation of equations where a and b are both set to 1. The critical mistake occurs when dividing by (a - 1), which equals zero, leading to the incorrect conclusion that 2 equals 1. Participants clarify that dividing by zero is undefined, making the reasoning flawed. A simpler example is provided to illustrate the same principle, emphasizing the importance of recognizing when division by zero occurs. The conversation highlights the distinction between mathematical errors and humorous misconceptions.
Byrgg
Messages
335
Reaction score
0
On another forum, someone had this in a sig:

If a=1 and b=1: then a squared - 1 = ab-b: then (a + 1)(a - 1) = b(a - 1):then a + 1 = b: thus 1 + 1 = 1: as a result 2 = 1

I couldn't follow all of it, could someone explain this to me?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
In the step, (a+1)(a-1) = (b)(a-1), one "cancels" the a-1, which in this case in the same as cancelling zero on both sides. You can't cancel zero because, a.0 = b.0 doesn't necessarily mean that a = b.
 
You couldn't follow the work or you don't understand why it works that way?

Here's the work:

a=b=1

a*a-1=a*b-b [since a=b=1]
(a+1)(a-1)=b(a-1) [factoring the right-hand side and factoring a b out of the left-hand side]
a+1=b dividing both sides by a-1[/color]
1+1=1
2=1

The problem is with the line I highlighted in red. You are dividing by a-1, but since a=1 you are actually dividing by zero, which is not defined.

Here's a simpler one to make it easier to see:

5*0=3*0
5=3 ["divide both sides by 0"] - obviously 5 does not equal 3.
 
Oh, ok so they're telling lies sorry I forgot about the division by 0, now I have to go tell them how wrong they are. Thanks.
 
There is a difference between a "lie" and a "joke".
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top